[Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_osm at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Jan 20 13:13:53 GMT 2011


I note on the Natural England condition statement that they use the  phrase 
"Residual Waterway", so perhaps we can make use of something like  
canal=residual. 


Jonathan Briggs did a nice article on the  ecology of the Montgomery Canal in 
British Wildlife a few years ago (BW,  17:401-410, 2006 IIRC).



________________________________
From: Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thu, 20 January, 2011 12:21:58
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)


Someoneelse wrote:
> I suspect that you could probably get a larger boat along the top 
> bit (just south of Ambergate) without too many issues, but I think 
> the bottom bit had signs suggesting not to disturb anything.

From WW's most recent article on the Cromford:
....

And indeed, since 2005 (WW January 2006), FCC do run occasional horse-drawn
boat trips there. (Unpowered boats obviously create less disturbance to
vegetation in the channel - similar reasoning is behind the 2mph limit on a
stretch of the Montgomery IIRC.)

So the correct way to tag the stretch from Ambergate to Cromford would be
something indicating horse-drawn boats yes, powered boats no. I'll leave it
to the wikifiddlers to decide what key/value pair works for that. :)

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943533.html

Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20110120/2f657f85/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list